唐一心 哈佛法学和塔夫茨哲学双博士
Phone: 312-598-2611
Email: yixin@ipfdalaw.com
一心在法律工作中将富有创造力和自信的诉讼风格与精湛的技术训练（分子生物学、生物工程）相结合。一心有各种法庭内的诉讼经验，包括在联邦巡回法院出庭辩论，主持并参与联邦地区法院的庭审和专利局的双方复审，以及经手大量专利诉讼，案件涉及制药、治疗方法和电子等广泛的技术领域。
一心对其他方面的诉讼案件也很有经验， 包括股东和合伙人纠纷、白领辩护、商标纠纷、虚假广告指控和反指控、不公平商业行为、反垄断违法行为和窃取商业秘密，等等。一心亦是美国仲裁协会的仲裁员。
通过诉讼实现客户的商业目标
客户的需求和关心点其实都会超出了一时一事的诉讼。 一心对自己的业务时时进行微调，以适应客户的各种业务、监管和法律需求。 一心在为客户提供法律服务时，总是用心帮助客户发展和实现其商业目标，并且他在这方面拥有丰富的经验。他曾代表一些最大的制药公司以及较小的公司处理复杂的事务，包括但不限于 Hatch-Waxman（”第四款”）诉讼，以及案件和通知书方面的规划。
斗士与军师
一心经常出庭，包括在上诉法院辩论、在联邦地方法院进行庭审以及辩论实质性动议。 一心对诉讼的各个阶段都有深入的了解。他有能力迅速了解案件的全局和具体问题，从一开始就制定高效的诉讼策略，并组建和领导团队执行该计划。
一心特别擅长在广泛的技术领域与专家证人合作，包括医学、制药、制剂设计、剂型制造、化学艺术、晶体形态和非晶态形态、药物发现过程、生物技术、生物制剂生产、机械设备、以及专利局和 FDA 程序。 一心在诉讼过程中能够迅速了解每位技术专家的专长，决定如何把这些技术专长与法律策略相匹配，从而提出法律上和技术上都可行可信的有力论据。
就读哈佛大学法学院之前，一心获得了塔夫茨大学分子生物学和微生物学博士学位，曾在布兰迪斯大学为医学预科生和研究生教微生物学，并在马萨诸塞州剑桥市怀特海德（即“白头”）生物医学研究所从事博士后研究，期间还指导过麻省理工学院的本科生。一心的科学研究兴趣包括设计建造质粒载体、研究微生物-宿主相互作用和微生物致病机理（包括发现脆弱拟杆菌的“BAT”操作子）、以及脊椎动物胚胎发育和信号转导相关基因的调控（包括发现斑马鱼的nlz2基因并进行功能分析）。
教育情况
- 哈佛大学法学院法学博士
- 塔夫茨大学哲学博士（分子生物学和微生物学）
- 明尼苏达州立大学曼卡托分校理学士，最优等生
- 曾就读于复旦大学（遗传学与遗传工程系）
律师资格
- 伊利诺伊州
- 纽约州
- 马萨诸塞州
- 美国联邦巡回上诉法院
- 美国伊利诺伊州北区联邦法院
- 美国马萨诸塞州地区联邦法院
代表性案例
专利诉讼 – 化学复合物专利
- Arbor Pharma v. Saba Ilac Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, 22-353 (D. Del.) (azilsartan)
- Acadia Pharma v. MSN Labs, 20-1029 (D. Del.) (pimavanserin)
- Otsuka Pharma v. Prinston Pharma, 19-1956 (D. Del.) (brexpiprazole)
- Chen v. Jung, 18-2015 (C.D. Cal.), 20-1255 (Fed. Cir.) (apalutamide)
- Novartis v. Ezra, 15-150 (D. Del.), 17-2284 (Fed. Cir.) (fingolimod)
- Boehringer Ingelheim v. Alkem, 14-7811 (D.N.J.) (dabigatran)
- Genzyme v. Sandoz, 13-1507 (D. Del.) (plerixafor)
- Pfizer v. Sandoz, 11-1252 (D. Del.) (temsirolimus)
- Hoffmann-La Roche v. Mylan, 09-1692 (D.N.J.) (capecitabine)
- Forest Labs v. Cobalt, 08-21 (D. Del.) (memantine)
专利诉讼 – 结晶形式或结晶原料药专利
- Acadia Pharma v. MSN Labs, 20-1029 (D. Del.) (pimavanserin)
- H. Lundbeck v. Prinston Pharma, 18-88 (D. Del.) (vortioxetine)
- AstraZeneca v. Alkem, 15-6609 (D.N.J.) (esomeprazole)
- Otsuka Pharma v. Apotex, 14-8074 (D.N.J.) (aripiprazole)
- Teijin v. Sun Pharma, 13-1852 (D. Del.) (febuxostat)
- Cephalon v. Sun Pharma, 11-5474 (D.N.J.) (tiagabine)
- Genentech v. Sandoz, 11-1925 (N.D. Cal.) (valganciclovir)
- Schering/Merck v. Apotex, 09-6373 (D.N.J.), 12-1516, 12-1543 (Fed. Cir.) (mometasone)
专利诉讼 – 配方/剂型专利
- Galderma Labs v. Prinston Pharma, 22-1166 (D. Del.) (doxycycline)
- Arbor Pharma v. Saba Ilac Sanayii ve Ticaret AS, 22-353 (D. Del.) (azilsartan)
- Pfizer Inc. v. Sinotherapeutics Inc., 21-1427 and 22-1484 (D. Del.) (tofacitinib)
- Acadia Pharma v. MSN Labs, 20-1029 and 22-1388 (D. Del.) (pimavanserin)
- Otsuka Pharma v. Prinston Pharma, 19-1956 (D. Del.) (brexpiprazole)
- Purdue Pharma v. Intellipharmaceutics, 17-392 and 18-404 (D. Del.) (oxycodone)
- Fresenius Kabi v. Fera Pharma, 15-3654 (D.N.J.), 17-1099 (Fed. Cir.) (levothyroxine)
- Boehringer Ingelheim v. Alkem, 14-7811 (D.N.J.) (dabigatran)
- AstraZeneca v. Sandoz, 14-3547 (D.N.J.) (fulvestrant)
- Cephalon v. InnoPharma, 14-1238 (D. Del.) (bendamustine)
- Millennium v. Apotex, 13-1874 (D. Del.) (bortezomib)
- Medicis v. Alkem, 12-1663 (D. Del.) (minocycline)
- Pfizer v. Sandoz, 12-654 (D. Del.) (temsirolimus)
- ViiV v. Lupin, 11-576 (D. Del.) (trizivir)
- Teva Branded v. Perrigo, 12-1101 (D. Del.) (albuterol)
专利诉讼和专利局双方复审 – 治疗方法专利
- Newron v. Aurobindo et al., 21-843 (D. Del.) (safinamide)
- H. Lundbeck v. Prinston Pharma, 18-88 (D. Del.) (vortioxetine)
- Allergan v. 1474791 Ontario, 15-3372 (N.D. Ill.), IPR2016-102 (botulinum toxin)
- Otsuka Pharma v. Apotex, 14-8074 (D.N.J.) (aripiprazole)
- Teijin v. Sun Pharma, 13-1852 (D. Del.) (febuxostat)
- Genzyme v. Sandoz, 13-1507 (D. Del.) (plerixafor)
- Medicis v. Alkem, 12-1663 (D. Del.) (minocycline)
- Schering/Merck v. Apotex, 09-6373 (D.N.J.) (mometasone)
- Forest Labs v. Cobalt, 08-21 (D. Del.) (memantine)
专利诉讼 – 其他类型的专利
- Newron v. Aurobindo et al., 21-843 (D. Del.) (safinamide) (chemical impurity; manufacturing methods)
- Purdue Pharma v. Intellipharmaceutics, 17-392 and 18-404 (D. Del.) (oxycodone) (chemical impurity; manufacturing methods)
- Teva Branded v. Perrigo, 12-1101 (D. Del.) (albuterol) (delivery device)
- AMD v. Samsung, 08-986 (N.D. Cal.) (computer chip design; chip manufacturing)
- DE Tech. v. Dell, 04-628 (W.D. Va.) (internet commerce)
其他诉讼和对抗程序
- Bausch Health (Valeant) v. ECI Pharma, 18-355 (N.D. Cal.) (false advertising; antitrust violation)
- Racies v. Quincy Biosciences, 15-292 (N.D. Cal.) (consumer class action)
- In re Daniel Duquette, 08-14 (Massachusetts State Ethics Commission) (gratuity statute/baseball operation)
- Pellegrini v. Silva, 70 Mass. App. Ct. 1110 , 2007 WL 3333247 at *2 (2007), further appellate review denied 450 Mass. 1109 (2008) (foreclosure by entry and possession)
